up to our great twitter and facebook page. thanks for joining us here on "the war room." one month until the election. please register to vote. have a great night and we'll see you back here tomorrow night. >> eliot: good evening, i'm eliot spitzer and this is "viewpoint." a speck for is haunting mitt romney courtesy of the obama campaign. it is 8'2" tall and covered with yellow feather. more on that in a moment. first, the cnn poll showed if the election were held today, likely voters would favor obama over romney by just four points.

while ohio has obama ahead by just one point. earlier today romney campaigned in iowa where he tried to appeal to the farm vote. >> romney: i will do everything in my power to strengthen once again the american farm the family farm strengthen our economy. >> eliot: but as romney spoke a plane flu over head that said crack down on wall street not sesame street. they are trying to exploit romney's promise to end government support with public television with that banner and this ad. >> big yellow a menace to our economy, mitt romney knows it's not wall street you have to worry about it's sesame street.

>> romney: the president is spending his time talking about saving big bird. i'll spend my time talk about saving jobs. >> eliot: eric fehrnstrom seems to think even less. ann romney and tag staged an intervention to help save mitt romney's campaign. but fehrnstrom would have none of it. >> i saw the story. it's a silly little story. there's no truth to it. we're focused on big things. >> eliot: for more let's go to ken voguer and tricia rose. ken, i have just got to start with you, your big scoop here.

called meaningless, picky, small, petty. somebody changed mitt romney for the better at least politically. why are they diminishing it so much. >> they don't want to acknowledge they were on the wrong course and clearly they were. there is a little bit of irony as to what got them to the wrong course and that is going against the very core instincts of mitt romney who after all made his mark as a consultant and then made his wealth as a private equity guy, a business where the type of very careful consulting and planning that we saw running his campaign arguably running his campaign into the ground is highly valued, and this idea that his family had to intervene to get him to in some ways block his core instinct to proceed in that type of manner and instead wing

it in some ways is interesting, and it doesn't necessarily jive with this narrative that they have of this very carefully planned and well-oiled machine. >> eliot: i think their campaign has been one disaster after another. tricia is there a core to mitt romney? i don't mean to challenge the guy on any personal level but is there a core which we can grasp? >> the core is when? that's the core of mitt romney and it would be insane to suggest that this late in the campaign he is going to suddenly reveal his true self. it just doesn't make any sense, number 1. number 2, i would rather think of this secret leak right? as the only way to manage this abrupt transition. he is all of a sudden kinder gentler, how many times did he say americans are hurting. it was shocking really.

>> those are the loafers that were the 47%. >> right. and that's the other question when no one is officially listening, why wasn't that mitt talking? when it was not being taped for secret delivery from "mother jones" why wasn't the real mitt talking. >> this is not a substantive change. we're not hearing any new policies or a whole lot of specifics, instead it's a stylistic change. and it was effective. the debate was a victory of mitt romney's stylistic shift. so to that extent it has been successful. and it is ironic that it bucks his sort of core direction -- i mean the way he sort of carries himself, and has politically for years. >> eliot: ken nobody is disputing the effectiveness.

i'm not disputing that mitt romney put on a performance any politician would be proud of. what i'm questioning at this point is whether there is enough of a core for the public to grasp over the next several weeks so they feel comfortable that they actually know who he is. and i think tricia that's what you are refuting. >> yeah. the people who can best gain traction from are the people who want to believe there's a kind gentle, conservative they can vote for. so i do think there's a little vulnerability there, but i don't think it is going to change people who were already voting for obama. >> eliot: we do have to come back to the debate for a moment because i think the president's performance of that debate fit unfortunately so neatly but the president put on a performance that fit ever republican character of him, weak

disengaged, above the fray and that permitted mitt romney without many facts at his fingertips to seem the more dekt rows of the two. is mitt romney correct that the president responding with a mocking ad about big bird almost diminishes the president? >> i think there is an element of that where this appears to be a real reach for something that at its core is kind of a strong argument for the president, and the president's campaign to be able to make which is very consistent with his argument that they have leveled at mitt romney for the duration of the campaign; that he cares more about the wealthy, wall street, the finance sector than he does about the rest of us. however, the delivery here with this big bird ad and message is just off. and we're not talking about that. we're talking about how silly this ad and attack seems as

opposed to this central focus of their attack which had been working this framing of mitt romney as sort of a callus candidate for and of the wealthy. >> eliot: tricia it seems to me the burden is back on the president now to say here is what i'll do in a second term. and if he doesn't do that the public may be seduced in to supporting mitt romney. how does the president reestablish that? >> i think it's not that he used big bird but that he used him inappropriately. big bird was a symbol for the value of the government to create a level environment for public institutions, for people who don't have access to private institutions and resources. and i think it would have been much more powerful to say this is how you create opportunity by funding resources that educate

the masses. >> eliot: haven't you put your finger at the largest crisis in the obama administration. he hasn't given an architecture an intellectual framework for the public to grasp on to. which would have justified the stimulus and health care bill. >> right. i think one of the reasons he hasn't done it is he is afraid if he does that it will make him vulnerable. so he tries to stay to the context, this policy for this reason, as opposed to an overarching plan for what it means to create opportunity. >> eliot: ken unfortunately time is running short. should democrats be panicking or is this a overreaction to one bad evening? and then next week the president

will turn to normal. >> they are certainly putting a lot of stock into the vice presidential debate do think this greater unsettled atmosphere around the obama campaign and the administration but we always knew this was going to be a tight race some of the lead was going to shrink headed into the debates and into november, so i don't think we have seen quite as major of a shift as some democrats are fearing at that point. >> eliot: tricia last question to you. the democrats are putting all of their eggs in the basket of joe biden who last week said the middle class has been buried for the last four years. this is the guy that is going to safe the ship? >> mitt romney hasn't just changed in tone. i think he has tried to resell a softer package financially, and i think paul ryan is now an

achilles heel for this new ship. so biden can shift that to have an impact. but obama has to come very strong the next time around. >> eliot: we will see. this is what makes it a good sport to watch. thanks for coming on the program both of you. now to my point. (vo) jennifer granholm ... >>for every discouraged voter, there are ten angry ones taking action. trickle down does not work. in romney's world, cars get the elevator and the workers get the shaft. that is a whole bunch of bunk. the powerful may steal an election, but they can't steal democracy.

build a ground-breaking car. good. now build a time machine. go here, find someone who can build a futuristic dash board display. bring future guy back. watch him build a tft display like nothing you've ever seen. get him to explain exactly what that is. the thin film transistor display... [ male announcer ] mmm, maybe not. just show it. customize the dash give it park assist. the fuel efficiency flower thing. send future guy home his work here is done. destroy time machine. win some awards, send in brady. that's how you do it. easy.

>> eliot: few presidential candidates have utter as many falsehoods as mitt romney. which brings us to our number of the day. two, as in two strikes. two statements in the debate that went beyond inaccurate. strike one, governor romney said the size of our navy has not been what it has been since 1916. where to begin. the number was the lowest during the bush administration in 2007. the 245 ships we had back in 1916 were simply not this the same class as our current hardware. how do you compare the boats back then with the massive fire

power of the aircraft carriers. romney said the president has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years. he didn't sign one, he signed three, with panama, columbia and south korea. and exports were if you have an opinion, you better back it up. >>eliot spitzer takes on politics. >>science and republicans do not mix. >>now it's your turn at the only online forum with a direct line to eliot spitzer. >>join the debate now. >> eliot: with 28 days until the 2012 election we have entered the lamest of lame duck sessions. with the outcome still unclear, no one on capitol hill wants to do anything to affect their party's reelection.

today brought more bad news. president obama was pulling away from mitt romney then he flopped in the most lopsided debate of all times. and now the policy poll shows a two point lead for mitt romney. >> so even wealthy people -- would you put a cap on how much they could deduct for example as far as charitable contributes are concerned? because i have heard you mention the $17,000 cap if you will for come folks out there, and i would like you to elaborate if you don't mind. >> i don't intend to lay out a piece of legislation here because i intend to work with congress. >> eliot: members of congress are already trying to form a plan of their own to avoid the upcoming fiscal cliff.

on tuesday eight senator convened at george washington's mount vernon estate to try to get a deal. one of them was chuck schumer. today he challenged a premise this tax rates at the top should come down. >> it would be a huge mistake to take the dollars we gain from closing loopholes and put them into reducing rates for the highest income brackets rather than into reducing the deficit. the reality is any path forward on tax reform that promises to cut rates will either end up failing to reduce the deficit, or failing to protect the middle class from a net tax increase. >> eliot: senator schumer suggested allowing the rates to return to the prebush rate. of course republicans were quick to pounce on shumers new

approach be old attacks. mitch mcconnell said, and i quote . . . for more on the mayhem in washington i'm joined by one of your favorites bernie sanders,ent senator of vermont. thank you so much for joining us tonight. >> my pleasure. >> eliot: is chuck schumer right that we could challenge the premise that rates at the top should come down. >> of course schumer is right. what the republicans want to do and some democrats is lower the tax rates for the wealthiest people in this country at a time right now, when the effect of what the wealthiest people actually pay is the lowest in

decades. and even if you manage to close some loopholes you will become neutral -- you are not going to bring in any more revenue to help us deal with the deficit. shumer is right in saying we have to keep the tax rates where they are right now, then we close the loopholes, and then raid additional revenue. >> eliot: it seems to me the importance of what chuck did today was it became a premise of all of these so-called wanna be intellectuals in washington and somebody is finally standing up and saying that is bad policy. >> look eliot, let's be very clear, and after the election and the lame duck congress i'm come back and see if i'm right or not. without the slightest doubt what the republicans have in mind are

lowering tax breaks for the wealthiest in this country, giving them even more tax breaks despite the fact that we have the most inequal distribution of income than anybody else. more tax breaks for the rich. and then they want to make massive cuts in social security medicare medicaid and virtually every other family needs. that's the plan. third point they would make sever poll that i have seen suggests that that is exactly what the american people don't want. the american people have been very clear. when the top 1% owns 42% of the wealth in america, you know what you have got to start asking those guys to start paying their fair share of taxes. when the middle class is disappearing, you can't cut

social security -- and by the way, the so-called chain cpi, one way to cut social security would not only hit the elderly and disabled it would also hit disabled veterans. you don't make massive cuts in medicaid or medicare so i think this issue is very very clear. which side are we on? are we going to protect the wealthiest people in this country, the largest corporations eliot, one fourth of profitable corporations pay nothing in taxes. we are losing about $100 billion a year because the wealthiest individuals are stashing their money in the cayman islands and other tax shelters. right now, you have guys from wall street, ceos of large

corporations, and these simpson boals guys working to come up with a proposal that will stick it to the middle class and protect the wealthy, and that's grossly unfair. >> eliot: if we send you a tape of that brilliant little statement you just said will you send it to the president and say here is your opening comment for your next debate? [ laughter ] >> eliot: and then we won't have to worry about mitt romney doing what he did. you just nailed it on the head. that was perfect. it seems to me the white house has fallen into the same premise that you and chuck are challenging. the president has been afraid quite frankly to take them head on and say no that is wrong. so you have to push back against the white house as well. >> look some of us have a very difficult life we are trying to defeat romney and ryan and

right-wing extremism, and trying to buck up this president, get him to stand up and say what the american people want to hear; is that he is going to defend them take on the big money, take on wall street in a meaningful way, and protect working families. >> eliot: yep. >> so we're working in two directions. >> eliot: you are exactly right. and one little piece of evidence that what you see as the hidden or not so hidden mission of the republican party is in the short clip we played just before you came on which is orrin hatch's statement when he refers to the wealthiest people in our country as the most productive members of society. >> if our friends on wall street were all so productive why did they drag us into this horrendous recession for which they had to be bailed out by the

middle class of this country. the bottom line here is more tax cuts for the wealthy is not only obscene, eliot in my view it is really bad economics. >> eliot: so you have diagnosed it, explained it now how do we explain it to the american public. >> i don't think you have to convince the american public of anything. what i have said -- i'm not very brave to tell you the truth. this is what every poll out there has said. and the president has to say, look i'm going to take on the big money interest take on corporate america, i need your help to stand with me against the lobbyists, and big money interest. president makes that speech he will coast to victory. >> eliot: i agree 100%.

you need the passion to do it. will joe biden bring that into the arena thursday night when he standing up with paul ryan? >> well, i certainly hope so. look, you know and i know and the american people -- or many of them know what the ryan budget is about. these are devastating cuts. the transformation of medicare into a privatization program. $770 billion in cuts to medicaid. what kind of moral outlook throws children poor children off of health insurance in order to give tax rates to billionaires? if joe didn't decimate this guy, i would be very surprised. >> eliot: all right, you almost had a different ending to that sentence, but i'm with you. i hope he does it. i'm glad you raised medicaid and what they do to medicaid is morally impossible to defend.

all right. i'm going to take a tape of your appearance here tonight, send it to david axelrod rod joe biden and the president, bernie sanders always a pleasure to have you on the show. thank you.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.

is >> eliot: coming up now that a case has been brought against jpmorgan chase when will the other banks have to take respsponsibility in their role in the 2008 crisis. but first bill maher explains people and nothing can explain these new musical tributes to mitt romney. when it wasn't fit anywhere else we put it in theview finer. >> i am still glowing from last week's run away win from mitt romney. he has the mitt-mittdom.

there is still no word for it it never existed before. ♪ mitt romney has got the solution, yeah ♪ ♪ his name is mitt romney he's going to fix the problems in the usa >> romney: thank you. you too. ♪ vote for mitt romney ♪ ♪ paul ryan too ♪ ♪ they've got the r-train rolling for you ♪ >> we all know that the bureau of labor statistics are cooking the books for their buddy obama. >> there was no doubt in my mind it was under 8%. take it any way you want. >> rick you what you are implying with your comments -- >> i'm not implying anything! >> why say it because the whole

point -- >> because it was true! >> if jack welsh, legendary former ceo of general electric is aledging dishonor of with the bureau of labor statistic, you can be sure he has some hard evidence. >> i have no evidence to prove that. >> maybe it's a coincidence. >> i'm not a deliver in coincidence. >> i like god do not play with dyes. >> i don't think there are any in life. >> impossible. there are no coincidences. [♪ dramatic music ♪] >> no coincidences? your life must be a constant series of unsolved mysteries. [ laughter ] >> congratulations now you have picked up for two seasons. you should be voting republican. >> well, that's the difference between rich republicans and

rich democrats, some of us vote against our interests for the betterment of the (vo) what is said here could decide the election. current tv presents coverage of the vice presidential debate. with unrivaled analysis and commentary. >> was this the game changer? is this going to change the dynamic? (vo) the only network with real-time reaction straight from the campaigns and from viewers like you. >> so keep on tweeting and maybe you'll have your voice be part of this democracy and see your >>now that's politically direct.

>> eliot: the foundation of the case brought by eric schneiderman to jpmorgan chase for the fraudulent practices of morgan sterns is a series of documents that warned that

numerous loan portfolios violated bear stern's own underwriting standards. what did they do with the information? nothing. the documents were released in the financial crisis inquiry's report in what caused the cataclysm of 2008. so does that mean more cases are soon to come. joining me is the former chairman of the fcic investigation into what caused the crisis of 2008. thank you for the fcic report the single best document that took us through that crisis. so finally, this is a good thing. >> it is a good thing. i mean you have seen these documents, and spoken about them. they are in black and white. and it shows a pervasive practice across all banks not just bear stearns where they were packaging, selling

defective loans to investors, they knew the loans were defective and they never revealed that information to investors. >> eliot: it permitted you to see not only that the bank knew but they did nothing. and you could trace this information about therefore trace the fraud. >> but they did more than nothing. the reason they were doing the due diligence on these loans that they were buying is they wanted to see if they were paying them. and now we find out through attorney general schneiderman's lawsuit that when they found out they were overpaying for this crummy stuff they were making lenders pay them some money, which they pocketed. >> eliot: right. >> they bundled them packaged them, sold them and never told

the investors what they did know. >> eliot: and this fell down on the taxpayer's shoulders. >> absolutely. this was not just bear stearns it was citigroup deutsche bank jpmorgan, the list of all of the big institutions. this was institution by institution, and even when they knew they were very bad loans, they waved them in, packaged them, and sold them. >> eliot: will there be other parallel lawsuits? should there be? >> i'll say this there certainly should be a full scale investigation. i want to praise attorney general schneiderman, because following in your footsteps he has really been pushing the ball up the hill, been arguing for more resources and now he has brought this case. i think it's important for the

sense of american justice that the investigation continue and there should be other cases based on what we know are pervasive practices. but more than that, i think this case also shows we're butting up against the statute of limit stations on criminal actions. >> eliot: even though i agree with everything you said, there is a fair question sometimes whether you can retroactively extend the statute of limitations, but put that aside. without individuals being held accountable, will we have satisfied the american sense of justice, and changed the emotional energy that drives wall street and others in california to act this way? >> i think the american people are owed a full investigation. but for deterrence to work it

can't just be the shareholders playing the bill. it has to be people losing their jobs. there needs to be consequence. >> eliot: i think your report this is why i am such a fan, did tell that story. people should read it and internalize what hand. in order to be sanctions that would change behaviors. simply paying money will not do it. unless individual have criminal and civil held against them, nothing will help. are we making process there? >> not enough. but this lawsuit was a first step because it said this wasn't just one or two transactions, but i still think we have work to do eliot to make sure we have civil pursuit, civil prosecutions that result in

tangible consequence. >> eliot: to the individuals. >> to the individuals. >> eliot: you and i were both state officials, so we view things through the prism of hey, states act, we don't feel the political restraints of washington. why has washington under both bush and obama so hamstrung in this regard? >> i don't know. i will say looking to the positive, there have been more staff personnel investigators put on the job. should have been earlier but better late than never. and i don't know whether it's a lack of focus on the enormity of what happened to this country, but i'm hopeful while we still have time, we need to press the case. >> eliot: >> eliot: washington often tells us let's look forward not back. but the failure to look back means you don't change behavior

prospectively. how do we change that? >> i think we have to change it and demand it because in the end a cleansing process, urn earthing the truth about the past is a predicate for moving forward in a good way, and if the present course persists which is banks do fine and they go right back at it nothing will have changed. and even the biggest settlements was equal to 2% of the year. what is happening today is not working. >> eliot: you are actually right. when i was ag we would impose fines and then you would look to see how the institution reacted, and it was almost like they shrugged their shoulders and said we'll make it back.

all right. former chairman of the fcic phil angelides, thanks as always for your time and incite. you do a

bloc >> eliot: mitt romney condemns the policy under barack obama but praises that same policy from harry struman. that's ahead in my view. but get's first check in with jennifer grandholm in "the war room." >> we are going to start with the battle for the house. you are not going to want to miss my exclusive interview with nancy pelosi. we're also going to get ready for that big vice presidential debate on thursday as you are, i'm sure. we're previewing what is at take and getting incites on style and substance. we have a whole bunch more in "the war room" tonight. it all starts at 10:00 eastern,

and 1398